Please comrade! Please entertain us with these "facts" of which you speak.
***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****
947,508 Views |
9220 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Pizza
I think the Senate should follow the lead of the House. Let the majority party call all the witnesses it wants (e.g. Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, etc.) and deny the minority party any right to call its own witnesses. You would agree with that wouldn't you?Chance Chase McMasters said:aggiehawg said:Profile in courage since he's fairly certain there isn't a total of 51 votes in the Senate for live witnesses.Quote:
I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.
One side wants more documents and witnesses.
The other side wants to throw it away and stick their head in the sand.
It's obvious why a guilty person would want to hide evidence and gag witnesses.
McConnell is playing a dangerous game here if they acquit in a sham trial and the public thinks they were part of the cover up. All the facts will come out eventually.
From the Mueller thread. But relevant here.
drcrinum said:
https://saraacarter.com/devin-nunes-republicans-have-an-active-investigation-into-ig-michaelatkinson/Quote:
Nunes, R-CA, spoke to this reporter for Monday's podcast. He revealed that transcripts of Atkinson's secret testimony will expose that the Inspector General either lied or he needs to make corrections to his statements to lawmakers. The transcripts has been kept from the public by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-CA, because it is damaging to their "impeachment scam," Nunes said...."We really do need to hear from the whistleblower," Nunes told The Sara Carter Show. "That needs to happen and the fact that the Democrats won't release the transcript of us interviewing the Inspector General Atkinson that brought this scam forward. Everyone needs to see that testimony and the reason that it's not being released is because it's very damaging, not only to the whistleblower, but also to Atkinson himself.".....Quote:
(Atkinson) is under active investigation. I'm not gonna go any farther than that because you know obviously he has a chance to come in and prove his innocence, but my guess is Schiff, Atkinson they don't want that transcript out because it's very damaging, Rep. Nunes.....
The above could be a major reason the Impeachment articles have not been forwarded to the Senate. The Dems may have acted in haste, unaware that Schiff was hiding a major problem in his secret dungeon.
Chance Chase McMasters said:aggiehawg said:Profile in courage since he's fairly certain there isn't a total of 51 votes in the Senate for live witnesses.Quote:
I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.
One side wants more documents and witnesses.
The other side wants to throw it away and stick their head in the sand.
It's obvious why a guilty person would want to hide evidence and gag witnesses.
McConnell is playing a dangerous game here if they acquit in a sham trial and the public thinks they were part of the cover up. All the facts will come out eventually.
You are truly a delusional person. Perhaps one of the most ever around here. And that's saying something.
He'd fit right in on Surly.
I'm with you comrade! Let's hope the Republican Senate makes it as ethical, honest and transparently bipartisan as the House Democrats did! I mean the House dems did such a thorough, bipartisan, investigation the Senate shouldn't have to find anything else. The crimes are obvious and stated clearly in the articles.Chance Chase McMasters said:aggiehawg said:Profile in courage since he's fairly certain there isn't a total of 51 votes in the Senate for live witnesses.Quote:
I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.
One side wants more documents and witnesses.
The other side wants to throw it away and stick their head in the sand.
It's obvious why a guilty person would want to hide evidence and gag witnesses.
McConnell is playing a dangerous game here if they acquit in a sham trial and the public thinks they were part of the cover up. All the facts will come out eventually.
Can we agree on that?
The house investigation was fine and within established rules.
Nothing but faux outrage the HSIC didn't let the witnesses coordinate testimony or let Nunes subpoena irrelevant witnesses.
This is a problem for the cover up but good for finding out the truth. We do want to know what happened? Or don't we?
Nothing but faux outrage the HSIC didn't let the witnesses coordinate testimony or let Nunes subpoena irrelevant witnesses.
This is a problem for the cover up but good for finding out the truth. We do want to know what happened? Or don't we?
Good luck, *****.
Trump was -127 on Bookmaker today.
I got him in Seotember for +123
I got him in Seotember for +123
The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you never know if they are genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln.
Elko is a loser and we will be buying him out for some obscene amount of money in two years. - Agsalaska
Elko is a loser and we will be buying him out for some obscene amount of money in two years. - Agsalaska
There is genuinely far more sincerity involved when the mullahs say they don't want war with us.MOCO9 said:
I love when liberals say "no one is above the law". No better time to respond with "what are your thoughts on illegal immigration".
Democrats especially have no business talking about the `above the law' shtick. Hillary actually destroying drives and evidence--- that's the kind of thing you don't even need a trial much for to drawn conclusion from. And yet she is still able to contemplate running. That tells you where "the law" stands.
So just to make sure we all know how insanely partisan you are, already knew, you feel the House ran a transparent, bipartisan investigation and all secret testimony has been brought to light? They gave us indisputable, compelling evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors that your president committed? I mean, not just hearsay right?Chance Chase McMasters said:
The house investigation was fine and within established rules.
Nothing but faux outrage the HSIC didn't let the witnesses coordinate testimony or let Nunes subpoena irrelevant witnesses.
This is a problem for the cover up but good for finding out the truth. We do want to know what happened? Or don't we?
You hanging your hat on Romney I think answers that. He's an upstanding Republican and avid Trump supporter. That truly is concerning!
Not really because the democrats have already made such fools of themselves no sane person can take anything they do as anything but a political stunt. Trump asked the Ukraine to "look into" Biden. You can't prove what his intent was.
Sure the democrats have wildly blown it into election interference but he could have easily just been interested in exposing corruption. Or maybe he wanted revenge for the democrats persistent persecution of himself without adequate predicate. If the democrats can launch wild eyed, crazed investigations into trump without basis why can't we investigate Bidens dealings that led to family enrichment?
No, this is pathetic from top to bottom and every rational person knows it. And by the way, you're right. That scamp Nunes can't be trusted as borne out by the Horowitz report...except wait, it was Schiff that was the demonstrable liar not Nunes.
Sure the democrats have wildly blown it into election interference but he could have easily just been interested in exposing corruption. Or maybe he wanted revenge for the democrats persistent persecution of himself without adequate predicate. If the democrats can launch wild eyed, crazed investigations into trump without basis why can't we investigate Bidens dealings that led to family enrichment?
No, this is pathetic from top to bottom and every rational person knows it. And by the way, you're right. That scamp Nunes can't be trusted as borne out by the Horowitz report...except wait, it was Schiff that was the demonstrable liar not Nunes.
Problem with the `public sentiment' angle is most of the center and all of the right know the Democratic Party and MSM do not have America's best interest in mind, and favor socialism and open borders. Now you can add making excuses for Iran. So when it comes down to it, they are still going to not vote Left for higher taxes and their livelihoods to be destroyed. Have said it before and will again --this is more like 1998 and nothing like 1974. The Republican Party will serve its interest -- and that is not to alienate so massive a base now.We fixed the keg said:Bogus stats don't bolster your claims. Also, in terms of impeaching and ultimately removing the President of The United States, the term "wrong" has to represent actions which are illegal/unethical not just antithetical to whatever the democrat stance of the day is.Chance Chase McMasters said:
Doubt it. Nobody blocks exculpatory information when they're innocent. Especially when this is as much a public sentiment game as a legal one.
70% of Americans know he did something wrong, the other 30% wouldn't be convinced by a confession. The more revealed through FOIA and new witnesses, the more damning it is, not a good trend.
"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society."
- John Adams
The other thing is "withholding exculpatory evidence" --that was already done in the House by Schiffs team, and the whole procedure, believe.
Oh, and I forgot this--- some of them are now favoring confiscation of guns at the threat of turning off citizne's power. That's a real selling point for anyone not part of the parasite level. Add that to the list of what expecting voters to choose instead of Trump. And look at the rejection -- and that is in blue state Virginia.
Quote:
Trump asked the Ukraine to "look into" Biden. You can't prove what his intent was.
Actually we can. They had to deliver a public statement. What should it say?
"Talk to Rudy"
No you can't. Give up. You lost. Try enjoying life a little. You might like it.
Everyone, and I mean everyone already knows what happened but you champ! If I ever reach your level of intelligence, I've asked my wife to have me committed. You keep hoping though little buddy!Chance Chase McMasters said:
The house investigation was fine and within established rules.
Nothing but faux outrage the HSIC didn't let the witnesses coordinate testimony or let Nunes subpoena irrelevant witnesses.
This is a problem for the cover up but good for finding out the truth. We do want to know what happened? Or don't we?
Chance Chase McMasters said:
The house investigation was fine and within established rules.
Nothing but faux outrage the HSIC didn't let the witnesses coordinate testimony or let Nunes subpoena irrelevant witnesses.
This is a problem for the cover up but good for finding out the truth. We do want to know what happened? Or don't we?
Everyone knew what happened as soon as the transcript was released to the public. Everyone who read the transcript is as credible a witness as those who testified during the House hearings. Making something out of nothing just shows that the Democrats never accepted the 2016 election. If one party refuses to to accept the will of the people then our system of government breaks down. The Democrats are playing a dangerous game that cannot end well.
Given Bolton's pleasure at the events in Iraq/Iran, on a more basic point, these Democrats hoping he will side with the Left may be waiting in vain.
Time will tell. Our only hope is a "silent" majority can navigate the propaganda and see what is clear. Like him or hate him, what Trump is doing with the economy and the courts are working. While I may not be 100% behind the package, or the delivery, the results have more than made up the difference.
The biggest risk we have, and one we are running out of time to fix, is the growth of the uneducated masses at the same time the critical thinking population shrinks. It is sad, people who can look at what the democrats have done and be anything but disgusted by the process. Hate Trump, fine. Want Trump gone, fine. Disagree with policy, fine. When you trash years of precedent, decorum, constitutional authority, and established rules to do so....that is a bridge too far.
The house created this circus by abusing its power as a majority to do exactly what our founders tried to avoid when they established a representative republic. Then, when the executive branch called their bluff declared privilege to engage the judicial branch, the dems tucked tail, filed articles for obstruction, and turned this into the **** show it is today.
The biggest risk we have, and one we are running out of time to fix, is the growth of the uneducated masses at the same time the critical thinking population shrinks. It is sad, people who can look at what the democrats have done and be anything but disgusted by the process. Hate Trump, fine. Want Trump gone, fine. Disagree with policy, fine. When you trash years of precedent, decorum, constitutional authority, and established rules to do so....that is a bridge too far.
Take the above.....There is absolutely no sane person who paid any attention who can honestly agree with this. At best, you could only say you support the process because the end justifies the means. Even then, you are openly stating you are ok with perverting our constitution and ignoring basic rights to force an outcome you want.Quote:
The house investigation was fine and within established rules.
Nothing but faux outrage the HSIC didn't let the witnesses coordinate testimony or let Nunes subpoena irrelevant witnesses.
The house created this circus by abusing its power as a majority to do exactly what our founders tried to avoid when they established a representative republic. Then, when the executive branch called their bluff declared privilege to engage the judicial branch, the dems tucked tail, filed articles for obstruction, and turned this into the **** show it is today.
Chance Chase McMasters said:aggiehawg said:Profile in courage since he's fairly certain there isn't a total of 51 votes in the Senate for live witnesses.Quote:
I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.
One side wants more documents and witnesses.
The other side wants to throw it away and stick their head in the sand.
It's obvious why a guilty person would want to hide evidence and gag witnesses.
McConnell is playing a dangerous game here if they acquit in a sham trial and the public thinks they were part of the cover up. All the facts will come out eventually.
Take your loss like a man
The transcript is all the exculpatory evidence anyone needs. Unless the Democrats can prove that his intent was to influence the election, they have nothing and they know it. They are not able to prove that, end of story. What do you not get about this? The Democrat's entire case is built on an assumption and assumptions don't hold up in a court of law. This is not hard.
Chance Chase McMasters said:
If Bolton has exculpatory testimony, we should hear that too.
LG wanted a real trial with real witnesses in 1998, what changed?
Funny how you select 1998 quotes from LG but ignore the 1998 quotes from Democrats that would support dropping this entire sham. The Dem quotes are throughout this thread.
Why did the House rush the hearings?
Trump screwed up with the phone call and the obvious suggest to investigate Biden. The holding back funds appears suspect.
The Mueller investigation was a witch hunt and all trust of being impartial democrats is out the window. Their rush thru the House is as suspect as Trump's phone call and therefore they have lost the public.
Witnesses will be called and life will go on after the trial but this whole mess will cost the democrats in the 2020 elections.
Trump screwed up with the phone call and the obvious suggest to investigate Biden. The holding back funds appears suspect.
The Mueller investigation was a witch hunt and all trust of being impartial democrats is out the window. Their rush thru the House is as suspect as Trump's phone call and therefore they have lost the public.
Witnesses will be called and life will go on after the trial but this whole mess will cost the democrats in the 2020 elections.
The senate has ZERO obligation to help the house complete the investigation that House leadership was too incompetent and impatient to conduct properly and thoroughly.
So, the list of things that aren't a problem:
but we are not OK with .....
Good lord......
- House investigations where the only witnesses heard from were Democrat called or Democrat approved
- The "whistleblower" was not, by the way the statute is written, a "whistleblower", proved to be partisan, and did not posses any first hand information. (which leads to a valid question, "why is it not being investigated to determine who was passing along confidential information to an individual without the need/clearance to have said info?")
- There is ample evidence there was coordination between Schiff, the "whistleblower", Democrat legal cousel, and the IG, but there has been zero follow up. If found there was ANY coordination, then Schiff lied and should be investigated for perjury and obstruction.
- The Chairman of the IC reads into official record an embellished version of the actual call transcript using words and inflections to prop a narrative (The same guy who lied and said he had stacks of evidence proving Trump/Putin collusion which has NEVER materialized)
- House investigations where everything was done behind closed doors with the exception of selective leaks which were in line with the Democrat narrative (true or not, is unknown as documents are sealed)
- House investigates secretively to prevent witnesses from corroborating. Locks down transcripts to confirm witnesses testimonies are not coordinated. So, now that it is all done, why are the transcripts still on lock down? What is the legal basis for blocking them?
- Past Presidents have all exercised Executive Privilege as a co-equal branch of government. When challenged in the past the legislative branch has asked for remedy from the judicial branch. In this instance, "I want it, I want it now, I want it all or else" replaced centuries of precedent because a partisan majority of one house of congress determined it to be urgent. There isn't enough time to allow for the court to rule, so we will just impeach for obstruction.
- Each vote has included ONLY Democrats in favor while against included all Republicans and a small number of Democrats
- "Have to be done NOW!!!!! Urgent!!!!!" Articles have been collecting dust for weeks while the chant has changed to "We need more testimony, we need more interviews"
- and many others but I am tired of listing them
but we are not OK with .....
- Following the same rules in the Senate unanimously approved for the Clinton impeachment.
Good lord......
Poor Gary. This is a losing battle. I know once this is dismissed the talking points will be that the senate was too partisan. Seems you are already saying that.
I'd suggest Gary's side win some senate seats if they don't like itQuote:
the senate was too partisan
For you trial lawyers, how often are additional witnesses (for the prosecution) are called outside of the people called before a grand jury?
captkirk said:I'd suggest Gary's side win some senate seats if they don't like itQuote:
the senate was too partisan
Oh no that's not it. Trump is guilty. You just don't understand
TCag2007
Another Interesting Thing From Elko That Went Under The Radar Monday
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
96